View Full Version : NATO Accuses Russia of Violating INF Treaty
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-jens-stoltenberg-accuses-russia-of-violating-nuclear-treaty/NATO accuses Russia of violating nuclear treatyAhead of defense ministers’ meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg demands Kremlin explain new missile.
Russia has a new type of missile that threatens Europe — in violation of a signature arms treaty — and NATO wants an immediate explanation, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday.
Speaking at a news conference ahead of a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Stoltenberg bluntly accused Russia of violating the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty (https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm), which banned an entire class of missiles that could be used by Russia to strike targets in Europe. “Now, this treaty is in danger because of Russia’s actions,” Stoltenberg said.
In a follow-up to Stoltenberg’s warning, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, speaking at her own news conference, said the U.S. would give allies evidence of Russia’s violations and would be prepared to “take out” the Russian missiles if necessary. It is unclear precisely what Hutchison meant, or if she intended to issue a threat that Moscow could view as highly provocative. Aides said they could not elaborate on her remarks or clarify them further.
The 1987 INF accord banned all missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, essentially offering a protective blanket to the European continent. It also banned American-made Pershing cruise missiles, which had been deployed by the U.S. and Germany and which Russia regarded as a severe threat. Since 2014, the United States has accused Russia of violating the INF treaty, and Washington has imposed sanctions (https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-approves-new-russia-sanctions-for-violating-cold-war-arms-pact/) intended to pressure Russia into compliance. But amid other sanctions intended to punish Russia for its annexation of Crimea and military aggression in eastern Ukraine, the measures related to the INF apparently have not had any effect.
Stoltenberg, at his news conference, said that Russia had only recently admitted that it possesses a new type of ground-launched mid-range missile, called the 9M729 (also referred to as the SSC-8) which he said violates the INF. “After years of denials, Russia recently acknowledged the existence of a new missile system called 9M729,” Stoltenberg said at NATO headquarters. “Russia has not provided any credible answers on this new missile. The most plausible assessment would be that Russia is in violation of the treaty. It is therefore urgent that Russia addresses these concerns.”
The Kremlin has denied violating the INF treaty, but has accused the U.S. of breaching the accord with a missile defense system deployed in Europe, including in Romania. In a statement last December (https://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/2017/276361.htm), the U.S. State Department called the INF treaty “a pillar of international security and stability.”
Hutchison insisted the U.S. is committed to the accord, but threatened to abandon it and develop new mid-range weapons if Russia refuses to come back into compliance. “The United States does not want to withdraw from the treaty; we certainly don’t intend to violate the treaty,” Hutchison said. “That is our goal: Russia in compliance,”
Hutchison continued. “But if Russian continues to say they are not violating, while the evidence says that they are, then diplomacy needs to be strengthened and we need to look for other ways to bring Russia to the table on this issue.” But in a pointed warning, she added: “There will come a point in the future where America will determine it has to move forward with a development phase that is not allowed by the treaty right now.”.......
Harley Quinn
7th Oct 2018, 13:58
Don't know how true this is (that there is a new nuke being fielded). I do wonder if it is a swat at the EUs attempts to form a military alliance, perhaps a timely reminder that Europe has for the last 70 years clung to the US for its protection and not a closed shop trading union.
Kerosene Kraut
7th Oct 2018, 14:04
This is about the INF treaty. If they field forbidden stuff we might develop our own.
And Europe did and is contributing. The UK will continue to do so after Brexit and keeps troops in Germany.
Old RN
8th Oct 2018, 16:32
The installation of Mk41 VL systems in the ABM system in Romania is a technical breach. These launchers can field Tomahawk missiles and tnerefore are in contravention of the INF even if no Tomahawks are fitted. :=
The site in Romania consists of an Aegis-ashore radar and a concrete launch pad. No missiles or launchers are deployed. Romania has signed a contract to buy Patriot missiles which will be able to link with the radar, but no version of Patriot is covered by the INF.
Russia claims the launch pad itself is a breach of the treaty - which is absurd, as any patch of concrete or car park within 60km would fulfill the same criteria.
The SSC-8, on the other hand, is a cruise missile development of the Iskander-M and deployed from the TEL trailer, which constitutes a direct breach.
pr00ne
8th Oct 2018, 19:29
ORAC,
Not being picky but did you mean to write Pershing AND Cruise Missiles? As Pershing was most definitely NOT a Cruise Missile!
And the Cruise Missile and Pershing deployment to Europe was a direct response to Soviet Deployment of SS-20 IRBM's aimed squarely at Europe.
Sorry, you’ve lost me........ :bored:
Trump: U.S. to exit nuclear treaty, citing Russian violations
ELKO, Nev. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Saturday the United States will exit the Cold-War era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated a class of nuclear weapons, in a move that is likely to upset Russia.
The INF treaty, negotiated by then-President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988, required elimination of short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles by both countries.
“Russia has not, unfortunately, honored the agreement so we’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out,” Trump told reporters after a rally in Nevada.
Washington believes Moscow is developing and has deployed a ground-launched system in breach of the INF treaty that could allow Moscow to launch a nuclear strike on Europe at short notice. Russia has consistently denied any such violation.
Trump said the United States will develop the weapons unless Russia and China agree to a halt on development.
China is not a party to the treaty and has invested heavily in conventional missiles as part of an anti-access/area denial strategy, while the INF has banned U.S possession of ground- launched ballistic missiles or cruise missiles of ranges between 500 and 5,500 km (311 and 3,418 miles).
Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, will visit Moscow next week.
A_Van
21st Oct 2018, 14:28
That's a typical US way of doing such business. When they want to get out of any treaty, they first accuse the other side and then do what they like.
So, we are again entering pre-carribean crisis times. The US can deply thousands of medium-range missiles that can reach Russia, while similar Russian missiles, even if deployed opposite to Alaska, can only reach some northen territories.
IMHO the main losers of ruining this treaty will be US proxies in Europe where the missiles would be installed. They would be the targets.
But the next obvious step, unfortunately foreseen from the US, is breaking the strategic missile treaty. This may result in increase of "platforms" from 700 to thousands and warheads from 1550 to tens of thousands. Madness.
Looks like the recent "feeding" of LockMart, Boeing and Raytheon with saidi cash is not enough....
glad rag
21st Oct 2018, 15:12
That's a typical US way of doing such business. When they want to get out of any treaty, they first accuse the other side and then do what they like.
So, we are again entering pre-carribean crisis times. The US can deply thousands of medium-range missiles that can reach Russia, while similar Russian missiles, even if deployed opposite to Alaska, can only reach some northen territories.
IMHO the main losers of ruining this treaty will be US proxies in Europe where the missiles would be installed. They would be the targets.
But the next obvious step, unfortunately foreseen from the US, is breaking the strategic missile treaty. This may result in increase of "platforms" from 700 to thousands and warheads from 1550 to tens of thousands. Madness.
Looks like the recent "feeding" of LockMart, Boeing and Raytheon with saidi cash is not enough....
What's russian for Irony?
Rosevidney1
21st Oct 2018, 15:49
May I respectfully remind the Moscow correspondent that President Obama also complained, although President Trump is getting the flak.
(Brussels) US claims that Russia has repeatedly violated a Cold War missile treaty could not be resolved in a meeting between the two sides. The US is now set to formally start the six-month process of quitting the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty on February 2, Nato allies have been told.
Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said the US had failed to fully consider Russian proposals to save the pact and prevent a new arms race in Europe. The INF treaty, negotiated by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and signed in 1987, eliminated medium-range missile arsenals. (Reuters)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-arms-race-looms-as-us-quit-inf-missile-treaty-w0pzk9tmp
Nuclear arms race looms as US quit INF missile treaty
The United States will withdraw from a nuclear treaty with Russia by tomorrow raising fears of a new global arms race with Washington no longer “tied” to existing weapons controls.
The Trump administration’s departure from the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty comes after Russia failed to destroy a missile that it had developed secretly (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kremlin-in-secret-nuclear-testing-claims-us-military-n03h5tn95). Washington suspended the treaty in February (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-poised-to-pull-out-of-reagan-gorbachev-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-607cx020m), starting a six-month countdown to formal withdrawal. Moscow has said that it will not change course.
President Trump made clear that his concern was not only Russian cheating but US military rivalry with a China unconstrained by treaty obligations....... John Bolton, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, said that after tomorrow Washington would be free to compete with Beijing.
He said that Washington was also “unlikely” to extend New Start, the last remaining pillar of the arms control regime developed during the Cold War, leaving the US and Russia without constraints on their nuclear arsenals for the first time in three decades........
New Start, the 2010 iteration of the Reagan-era nuclear arms reduction agreement with Moscow, was “flawed from the beginning”, Mr Bolton said. “It did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery systems. It is due to expire in 2021 and while no decision has been made it’s unlikely to be extended. Why extend a flawed system just to say you have a treaty?” The Trump administration wants a new treaty that includes China (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-in-talks-with-russia-on-new-nuclear-arms-deal-zqdr6ng9k) but Beijing is not interested.
Jens Stoltenberg the secretary-general of Nato, appealed to Russia yesterday to comply with the INF treaty, even as he conceded that the pact was about to expire. Mr Stoltenberg said, “we see the demise of the INF treaty”, but he added, “we still call on Russia to come back into compliance”.
Asturias56
1st Aug 2019, 08:06
"The Trump administration wants a new treaty that includes China (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-in-talks-with-russia-on-new-nuclear-arms-deal-zqdr6ng9k) but Beijing is not interested."
IIRC in a similar situation neither were the Russians way back in the '60's - it was only when they reached "strategic parity" that they were interested in talking to cut back on further wasteful expansion
weemonkey
1st Aug 2019, 17:17
This is about the INF treaty. If they field forbidden stuff we might develop our own.
And Europe did and is contributing. The UK will continue to do so after Brexit and keeps troops in Germany.
Don't count on it unless Germany starts spending.
IMHO, the USA are (correctly and rightfully) concerned about many missiles of that kind in China (and also some in Iran and some ME countries). But then comes a dirty game to blame Russia and use this "reason" to quit the INF and then say they want to start from scratch on a multi-lateral basis. But China just keeps silence ignoring the invitation and the new game is unlikely to start soon.
TASS: Russian Foreign Ministry confirms termination of INF Treaty (http://www.focus-fen.net/news/2019/08/02/441002/tass-russian-foreign-ministry-confirms-termination-of-inf-treaty.html)
TASS: Russian Foreign Ministry confirms termination of INF Treaty
Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry has officially confirmed that the operation of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty has been terminated at the initiative of the United States as of August 2, TASS reported.
"On August 2, 2019 at the initiative of the American side the operation of the treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States on the elimination of intermediate and shorter range missiles signed in Washington on December 8, 1987 was terminated," the Foreign Ministry said on the legal information website on Friday.
etudiant
2nd Aug 2019, 21:54
Seems evident that the old era of bilateral treaties is obsolete.
What remains very murky is how the treaty approach can work with multiple players.
There are not many successful precedents that I know of.
The world will become more equal, as many more powers have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It may however not become fairer or safer.
Well said, etudiant. You definitely deserve to be a Dr ;)
pr00ne
4th Aug 2019, 09:44
So, Russia, a country with an economy slightly larger than that of Spain, is going to enter into a sophisticated arms race with the USA.
I guess some folk just don't learn from history.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/12/nato-is-preparing-to-ban-land-based-nukes-in-europe/
NATO members set to say they won’t deploy land-based nukes in Europe
WASHINGTON ― NATO allies (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/) are poised to formally oppose the alliance deploying ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe, following U.S. President Joe Biden’s meeting with fellow heads of state set for June 14 in Brussels, Defense News has learned.
The position, which echoes past remarks from Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_176520.htm), is set out in a draft communiqué for release after the NATO summit, according to one U.S. Senate aide and one European official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the closely held document.
The move is seen as possible way to ease tensions with Moscow and to tee up an arms control dialogue ahead of the U.S.-Russia summit (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/04/30/biden-putin-summit-in-works-for-summer-says-sullivan/) in Geneva on June 16.
The NATO discussions come amid news Moscow will again propose a moratorium on the deployment of land-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, reported by Russian state media this week. NATO and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The issue has been an open question since Russia deployed land-based SSC-8 missiles (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/02/06/russia-bids-farewell-to-inf-treaty-with-fresh-nuclear-development-plans/), which the U.S. said violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. That in turn prompted then-President Donald Trump’s 2019 withdrawal from the INF Treaty (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/02/01/trump-blames-russia-for-us-withdrawal-from-nuclear-arms-treaty/). (Russia has claimed the U.S. violated the treaty, which U.S. officials denied.)
NATO’s deployment of new land-based missiles in Europe is theoretical. Stoltenberg first said last year (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_176520.htm), after a meeting of the alliance’s Nuclear Planning Group, that there were no plans to do so, though he noted that some allies planned to acquire new air and missile defense systems.
After the Trump administration and NATO dismissed Russia’s proposed moratorium in 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron urged reconsideration of the moratorium.
Biden, whose approval is needed for the communiqué, would likely receive praise from arms control advocates (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2021/06/03/biden-urged-to-bring-missile-defense-reductions-to-putin-summit/) but blowback from hawkish nuclear weapons advocates (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/06/02/before-us-russia-summit-measure-demands-any-new-missile-treaties-add-china/) in Congress, should the ban on ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe become official.
Tim Morrison, who oversaw the nuclear portfolio on Trump’s National Security Council and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the last administration rejected Russia’s moratorium offer because it considered the country a dishonest partner on arms control. Morrison believes that sacrificing the option to field the weapons in Europe would deny the U.S. bargaining power at the upcoming Geneva summit.
“If this is a unilateral concession to Russia, that’s a terrible idea; and if it’s a bilateral concession, that’s not much better because you can’t trust Russia,” he said. “Why would we take an option off the table we may need in the future to respond to belligerent actions by Russia?”
Asturias56
13th Jun 2021, 08:13
No need to match Russian missile by type every time. NATO has a load of sea launchable stuff in large numbers
Not_a_boffin
13th Jun 2021, 14:26
No need to match Russian missile by type every time. NATO has a load of sea launchable stuff in large numbers
Which nuclear capable sea launchable stuff would that be then?
SASless
13th Jun 2021, 14:55
Some of us are old enough to recall the Cuban Missile Crisis....and the resolution that involved Kennedy agreeing to remove Missiles from Turkey as part of the "deal".
The Russians have a struggling economy....and moves by Trump in trying to create a better bargaining position have of course been undone by the current Administration.
The one thing Trump understood was the need to negotiate from a position of strength....something the Russians understand as well.
If the Russians gain control of the Natural Gas supply to Europe Putin gets a Twofer for that....improved economy and an ability to withhold the supply of Natural Gas once the Western European countries become dependent upon that supply.
My question is why this renewed "hostility" between Russia and the West....are the committed Communists there seeking to regain their once powerful status post WWII but was lost with the breakup of the Soviet Union?
If so...to what gain....what is their ultimate goal?
fitliker
13th Jun 2021, 17:07
The Russians are sneaky bastards not to be trusted , they keep moving their borders closer to NATO weapons and equipment every year since 1989 .
Asturias56
13th Jun 2021, 17:38
" they keep moving their borders closer to NATO weapons and equipment every year since 1989 "
and there was me thinking that they used to be just outside Hamburg and Berlin - the borders moved a long way east in a couple of years didn't they?
Asturias56
13th Jun 2021, 17:39
"
The one thing Trump understood was the need to negotiate from a position of strength....something the Russians understand as well."
Ttrump wasn't hard on the Russians - he'd been taking their money for too long.............
Asturias56
13th Jun 2021, 17:40
"Which nuclear capable sea launchable stuff would that be then?"
All those missiles in RN SSBN's???
SASless
13th Jun 2021, 18:31
Someone has been to the Pub for a long lunch?
Not_a_boffin
13th Jun 2021, 19:24
"Which nuclear capable sea launchable stuff would that be then?"
All those missiles in RN SSBN's???
You are aware of the difference between a strategic deterrent and an intermediate nuclear force? And the potential difference in their employment - and indeed posture?
There's a reason the INF Treaty covered the weapons that it did. Which strangely enough didn't include SLBM.
Asturias56
14th Jun 2021, 07:36
"You are aware of the difference between a strategic deterrent and an intermediate nuclear force? And the potential difference in their employment"
I am aware that you can divide forces up like that
I'm also aware that every study, war game and analysis shows that once one side uses nuclear weapons in Europe the balloon goes up and its all over. Doesn't matter if they are IRBM, ICBM's or just N-tipped cruise missiles. The distinction is irrelevant if they are used. :(
Not_a_boffin
14th Jun 2021, 08:38
I am aware that you can divide forces up like that
Not me. The people who plan and negotiate this stuff for real and have been doing so for decades. Irrespective of what people on the internet think.
I'm also aware that every study, war game and analysis shows that once one side uses nuclear weapons in Europe the balloon goes up and its all over. Doesn't matter if they are IRBM, ICBM's or just N-tipped cruise missiles. The distinction is irrelevant if they are used.:(
It won't have been every study, war game or analysis. Otherwise NATO wouldn't still have air-dropped buckets of sunshine available for use by various member states, despite the cost and embu88gerance factor. Nor would NATO have deployed cruise and Pershing in the days of my youth and then negotiated them away as part of the INF.
What is certain, is that the threat of use of non-strategic weapons forces a difficult choice between folding to that threat or risking a strategic exchange. Which is why trite - and I assume throwaway - suggestions that NATO has loads of sea launched nuclear stuff to provide a counter (when you actually mean the strategic nuclear deterrent) tend to to elicit a somewhat derisory response.
analysis shows that once one side uses nuclear weapons in Europe the balloon goes up and its all over.
You are describing the policy of Tripwire - which was replaced by Flexible Response because it wasn’t credible. Which is precisely why tactical and INF weapons were developed - to ensure that escalating chain of use.
The idea of tripwire is that any attack by an enemy would invoke a full scale strategic response.
Which raises the question, would the UK, as an example, risk its existence, and it’s deterrent, to save Krakow? If not, when the threshold be reached?
Which raised the probability it never would - which invited the possibility of an attack by an enemy who made their decisions on that basis.
Flexible Response put nukes into the hands of battlefield commanders - if an Honest John was used, would the next step be a Pershing and so on up the ladder - suddenly the risks of escalation and the invocation of the strategic forces becomes a real risk - so no one would risk the first step.
The INF Treaty removed all such weapons meaning any future war would just be conventional and not risk the use of the strategic forces on either side, and each side knew they could defeat a conventional attack.
The reintroduction of sub-strategic nuclear weapons by either side unbalances that calculation - and the fear that the side with the weapons might use them without fear of retribution because of the calculations above.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/225/225we17.htm
https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4
SASless
14th Jun 2021, 11:19
So...if you are confronted with the total destruction of your ability to fight....or such an attack as to end your Nation's survival....does one light off the big candles or merely accept defeat and leave the real toys in their storage containers?
Had the other side had Nukes during the Second World War....do you think they would not have used them against us in order to assure a victory for themselves and cause our defeat.
Truman used the only two in existence and ended the War.
If weapons are available....they will be used by desperate people.
Nothing on a piece of paper shall ever change that.
Less Hair
14th Jun 2021, 11:45
Deterrence worked. Mutual assured destruction worked. No reason to warm up the anti nuke hysteria. Keeping the concept credible and working is part of it.
Rogue players are the only nuke problem not developed nations and political systems.
SASless
14th Jun 2021, 12:11
Reading up on Stanislav Petrov, known as "The Man Who Saved The World" makes you understand how close to disaster we are with all of these Nuclear Weapons primed and ready to launch.
Also...going back to the Cuban Missile Crisis and seeking how disaster was avoided during that time period also is instructive of the risks we face.
Less Hair
14th Jun 2021, 12:35
No nukes? This means the bigger conventional player wins whenever he starts a war. Without risk to him.